Red Fleet walleye

[bearnk82]

I LIKE FISHING

[mactuna]

Very well said, that is and always will be the way nature works. Just look at the pacific ocean or any ocean for that fact. The ocean near Calif has so many different species because of the food base. Why is it that bait populations survive and thrive. Utah has no live baitfish and that is just so unnatural in the wild. Then the plant sterile Rainbows and Splake and Tiger Trout instead of growing populations of shad and
minnows. Baitfish will not overun the game fish and cause any problem what so ever.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote mike4cobra]Yeah yeah yeah. Im opening myself up to all kinds of forum bash with out a link for proof, but, take it for what its worth. I just consider you the same kind of people that say I didnt catch any fish unless I post pictures[crazy]. Actually there are some links on here supporting what i said, just depend on how you read them. The information I aquired was from WalleyeCentral.com about 7or 8 months ago. They had compiled a bunch of University and DNR studies about the walleye genetics, was quite an interesting read. But once again, no link, so bash away.[/quote]

Okay. Help me out here. You say you read where walleyes are adapting, even genetically changing, at a very accelerated rate. Yet you can't remember where you got your information. I've cited two web site addresses that have information about walleye genetics. Here is a quote from one master's thesis that says the genetic differences between the identified variations in walleyes was caused by separation, caused by glaciation during the Pleistocene era. That's the last ice age. It does not suggest that the various genetic differences are recent developments. Which is it? Are they genetically mutating in a few generations, or did they develop unique characteristics based on separations that happened from 2.5 million years ago, up to about 12,000 years ago?

Glaciation during the Pleistocene played a primary role in shaping this genetic structure. The four glacial advances of the Pleistocene, beginning about one million years ago (Hocutt et al., 1986) altered much of the northern Mississippi basin, impounding and rerouting many tributaries, and forcing walleye inhabiting these areas into refugia to the south and east where the subsequently diverged due to genetic drift and bottlenecks (Billington 1996). After the glaciers receded, a mixing of the walleye populations from the refugia occurred within the Mississippi Basin. The receding glaciers also created the Great Lakes, which were also populated with these walleye populations.
Analysis of intraspecific mtDNA RFLP haplotypes has shown walleye from the Great Lakes to group into four distinct populations consistent with three Pleistocene refugia (Mississippi River, Missouri River, and Atlantic) with a fourth divergent southern population unaffected by the glacial advances (Figure 4) (Billington et al. 1992; Billington 1996). A fifth group of walleye was identified from the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee River Basins possessing various haplotypes consistent with the prevalent stocking of these areas with fish from the Great Lakes. This group also included a few individuals possessing divergent haplotypes thought to be remnants of the original walleye population in this region prior to stocking and possibly native to their respective locations (Billington 1996).

[signature]

[mike4cobra]

They are absolutly right. But the thesis you are quoting has to do with the genetic differences bewteen naturally occuring walleye. I never said I cant remember where I got my info from, just I cant find the article. But the university studies coincided with the studies of planted walleye in water that they do not naturally occure in. Of course the natural walleye devoloped their genetic differences thousands of years ago by geographic seperation. But man has only been planting them in non native waters for about a hundred years or so. When I read the article, they said they stumbled upon these differences by accident. As WalleyeCentral.com is a walleye fishermans site, they thought it would be a good read, as it was. The links you have provided do sound like a portion of the information in the study i read.

Like I said, I have looked through their site and as they update articles frequently, I can not find the material to support what I have said. But different species of fish, bird, mammal, and reptile have been proven to geneticly adapt faster that others in their group. So I dont understand why its so hard to believe walleye do. I didnt say they mutate into some sort of hairy wild fish that will get out of the lake and eat deer if they run out of food, just they develop specialized genes rather quickly.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Additional studies on the stock structure of walleye have revealed similar divergent haplotypes. In a DNA sequence analysis of walleyes throughout their range, Stepien and Faber (1998) found most haplotypes were consistent with Great Lakes haplotpyes, but also observed one particular haplotype, found in the Ohio River that was
11
highly divergent from Great Lakes haplotypes. They suggested a time since separation of 1.5 million years from the Great Lakes haplotypes. A survey of walleye in the Ohio River using RFLPs, microsatellites, and allozymes (White et al. 2005) also found a divergent haplotype in the Upper Ohio River. It is likely that these haplotypes are similar to those observed by Billington (1996) and are possibly members of the same native population.
Mitochondrial DNA RFLP analysis of walleye in the New River and Claytor Lake, Virginia (Palmer et al. 2001) revealed unique haplotypes divergent from Great Lakes haplotypes, and suggested a unique New River stock. This haplotype could represent a relic strain of walleye that is native to this river system. White et al. (2005) found identical digest patterns exhibited by both the Ohio River and the New River walleye suggesting a close genetic relationship.
Stepien and Faber hypothesized a Teays River origin for the divergent walleye haplotype found in the Ohio River. The Teays River was a pre-Pleistocene river, dating to the Tertiary (Ver Steeg 1946), that originated in Virginia and flowed north across Ohio and Indiana and connected to the Mississippi River in Illinois (Figure 5, Ver Steeg 1936; Fidlar 1943, Hocutt et al. 1986). The lower two-thirds of the river was impounded by the Nebraskan glacial advance, leaving the upper third (present day Kanawha, New, Big Sandy, Gauley, and Little Kanawha Rivers) isolated (Hocutt et al. 1986). This region is a potential additional walleye refugium.

Sorry to keep quoting from the thesis, but it contradicts what you are saying. It specifically mentions planting walleyes into different drainages. It notes that there is hybridization. It delves in to the differences of habitats, but it consistently uses the Pleistocene as the benchmark for divergence of strains. It never suggests that there are new strains developing, only that there has been hybridization because of planting multiple strains in the same waters. It also suggests that if there is adequate habitat and differing forage and structure that some waters may hold more than one strain of walleye, and that the two different strains may not occupy the same area of a lake at the same time. And may therefore never hybridize. It never suggests that the development of new strains of walleye have been seen in modern times.
[signature]

[utahduckhunter]

dwr should leave red fleet alone let walleye live there . look at lake powell the walleye do very good there .think dwr should open there eyes. and if a think the walleye going eat all bulegill up the my be they should put some shad in the lake to maintain the balance of the lake forge. or the dwr should use red fleet breading res. for walleye .so they can stock some in other res. to controll the trash fish some other res. across the state.
[signature]

[mike4cobra]

Like i said before, the thesis you are using, I believe, is one of a few they used to compile their findings. The test areas in the paper you are quoting are still areas where walleye naturally exsist. Ive been trying to find the other papers, with no luck. But if I remember correctly they had fish samples from washington to arizona where walleye have never been present. They were trying to see how the planting and spawning of these fish were affecting the crossbreeding when they stumbled arcross the variations. The fish were from hatcheries with the original strains from the great lakes areas. I think (thats not goin well here[crazy]) that it has something to do with the difficulties in raising steril walleye also.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

You mean to tell me that since the Pleistocene, walleye have evolved into only 5 subspecies?

Quote from the paper " Analysis of intraspecific mtDNA RFLP haplotypes has shown walleye from the Great Lakes to group into four distinct populations consistent with three Pleistocene refugia " and " A fifth group of walleye was identified from the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee River Basins"

Why, our very own Bonneville cutthroat trout also has 5 subtypes and lake Bonneville has only been gone for 10,000 years.

Who would have thought that this discussion would demonstrate that the good old Bonneville Cutt would be shown to be evolutionarily more adaptable than walleye! []

Carry on
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

I'll check back to see if you can find it. I can easily see how they might have found a strain of walleye that they were not expecting in a body of water. They could have taken eggs and milt from two different strains when they were raising hatchery stock. Or they could have taken fish from a body of water that had two different strains of walleye and thought that there was only one strain in the water where they obtained the brood stock. I'm still not seeing any indication that the strains are developing in current time. Everything suggests 12,000 years to as much as 1.5 million years ago.

It does confirm the concept that some strains are predetermined to spawn in different conditions, and possibly different times. Timing of the spawn can have consequences for the offspring. Some may be hatched too late to utilize an abundant forage. Some may be too mature to feed on zooplankton when it starts to bloom. Some strains appear to be more likely to eat insects and others to eat forage fish. If you had two strains in a body of water, and one utilized fingerling perch while the other was eating mayfly larvae, you would have to use different techniques to catch each of the strains. If you were used to throwing cranks to catch walleyes in a body of water where they eat minnows and then went to another body of water (or even a different part of the same body of water) you may find walleyes that were eating insects, and not interested in your lures.

Either way, walleyes don't belong in Red Fleet. They are marginal in most of the waters where they are now. You can't manage the unmanageable. Most species developed certain traits over millions of years, in fairly specific habitats. Some thrive when they are first placed in a new environment. The walleyes in Red Fleet are growing nicely, for now. They will eat themselves out of house and home. There is no good way to provide enough food for them though. If you plant forage fish, they will either eat all of them, get big and spawn some more. Which will only mean more hungry mouths to feed and not enough food. Or the forage that you plant will eat the zooplankton that the young walleyes need to grow. Red Fleet reservoir ain't exactly like any of the places where walleyes originally come from.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

It could mean that in another million years there will only be one subtype of Bonneville cutthroat left. Or possibly even extinct. The factors that forced the cutthroat to adapt occurred in a short period of time. The Pleistocene lasted for a couple of million years. [crazy]
[signature]

[packfish]

How about like idaho. Your forage fish are your game fish. Plant fingerling walleye, trout, perch and so forth.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

That's what is happening now. They are planting trout, and the walleyes are eating them. It's too expensive, and can't continue. You shouldn't have to plant perch more than once, except walleyes eat too many of them (as in Yuba). The walleye are spawning and providing their own fingerling. It's not enough. The better answer is to not put walleyes where they aren't controllable.
[signature]

[packfish]

I was just quoting what had been said in a previous entry concerning Idaho- I by no means think they should go in that direction.
[signature]

[fuzzyfisher]

thats is NOT the case with Yuba!! the problem Yuba had was the perch over populated to fast becouse there was not enough walleye in the lake to control there numbers and the perch started eating there own fry!

add on the fact that the water leves droped to fast for 2 years in a row and the perch did not have good spowns them years means the big crash.
[signature]

[fisherman]

I wish Red fleet was closer. I would be there every day. If more people around here knew how good they tasted they would have a different attitude. They aren't that hard to catch. Sometimes trout can be alittle boring, too easy to catch and not much of a challenge. I don't think I could get bored catching walleye.
I think if they didn't poison it, walleye addicts would keep them thinned out pretty good. And many hardcore trout fisherman would be converts. I love catching all and any fish , but would rather eat a walleye any day.
[signature]

[mike4cobra]

Should have broke up my sentences a little more, sorry. I was suggesting that Utah plant game fish as forage fish with a few examples, not exactly the ones from idaho but a few off the top of my head. When speaking with a dnr guy there he was telling me that the cost vs yield of planting fingerlings in huge quantity vs catchables in smaller quantities was about the same. It just takes a couple of years to see the results in the form of catchable fish. But we Utahns are too impatient to wait 2-3 years to see the fruits of the dwrs labor. We want a stringer full of 10 inchers now NOW NOW!!! [mad]
[signature]

[packfish]

impatient----------- yea to a point- but what we have are put and take fisheries on many impoundments-
either they are put in so many can take or as you would like at fingerling stage they are forage.
[signature]

[submoa]

Walleye's are very hard to catch in my opinion. I call it walleye hunting. You'd better master about every kind of trolling and jigging and every presentation if you are going to consistantly catch walleye's. What worked today probably will not work tomorrow. That's why I love fishing for them. If you can consistantly boat walleye's you can catch most freshwater species IMHO.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

They used to plant fingerling rainbow at Deer Creek. They weren't getting any of them back as catchables. They couldn't grow any bigger before the walleyes ate ALL of them. It wasn't until after RAC meetings and public input that people wanted to keep a trout fishery in Deer Creek that they started planting catchable rainbows at Deer Creek. If they hadn't changed to catchables, they would have quit putting trout in at all.

Walleyes aren't that tough to catch. You have to find them. You have to put the right thing in front of their noses. And it has to be the right time of day, weather pattern, and phase of the moon. Yes they taste good. No they aren't worth planting anywhere else. MHO
[signature]

[fuzzyfisher]

and right there is a porblem with red fleet! it's a long way for a lot of the walleye guy's to go fishing there.. i would like to go hit them hard my self.. but being a 3 1/2 hour drive 1 way makes it hard for me to even think of planing a trip there for them.. it's not a place i'm going to be makeing a day trip too any time soon.. but i might plane a 2 or 3 day trip there if the eye bug realy hit's me.. [sly]
[signature]